Twelve high-ranking members from the Religious Society of Friends of Truth, better known as Quakers, were recently treated to an audience with the Queen Mother, reports Gay Star News.

The Quakers beseeched the Queen with the following message:

“Our commitment to equality led us in 2009 to seek a change in the law to provide for same sex and opposite sex marriages on an equal basis. This is because of our deeply held belief that we see the light of god in everyone which leads us to respect the inherent worth of each individual and each loving relationship.

We see the recent move to allow the celebration of civil partnerships on religious premises as a step towards full equality in marriage.”

Would that the Queen had any actual political power! Perhaps she can bring it up at her weekly tea with Prime Minister David Cameron? Of course, Cameron already supports marriage equality and has been moving forward plans to make it the law of the land.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #davidcameron #england #quakers stories and more

30 Comments

Charles The Great

They should have addressed this to the British Parliament and not the Queen since she is only a figure head.

March 29, 2012 at 3:03pm

Gary Indiana

Cameron supports marriage equality because he is a conservative, not despite.

He is basically a family values conservative, just not a homophobic one. Because of that, he has got to support the state recognizing gay/lesbian couples as valid family unit.

March 29, 2012 at 3:03pm

Robert in NYC

She’s actually the head of state! Bills passed in Parliament are usually given royal assent (her signature). She also retains the power of veto but that hasn’t been used in 150 years and not likely to be. So in essence, she is more than a figur head. She’s also the head of the state church whose Archbishop is appointed by the government. It is quite appropriate for the Quakers to address the Queen on this issue. I’m also sure marriage equality will be discussed between her and the Prime Minister. She takes a deep interest in the daily activities of Parliament and is well informed on most issues.

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson

Freddie

@Robert in NYC: The last time a monarch refused to consent to a bill was longer than 150 years ago; it was back in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Act.

@Belize: Yeah, but in reality it’s the Prime Minister who wages war and usually subject to a vote in Parliament.

March 29, 2012 at 4:03pm

Me

The queen mother? Did they dig her up or get a medium?

March 29, 2012 at 4:03pm

Pannyxeos

@Freddie: I was gonna say the same thing. Queen mother is a title or position reserved for a widowed queen consort (a queen dowager) whose son or daughter from that marriage is the reigning monarch.

March 29, 2012 at 5:03pm

Brand

How wonderful that gay people can see yet another branch of Christianity—along with Presbyterians and Episcopalians—that embraces homosexuality as full and valid children of God equal to any other. There is no reasonable aspect of Christianity that should engender any bad feeling toward the mere fact of someone who is homosexual (lifestyles notwithstanding); all Christians who perceive a staunchly anti-gay aspect to their religion are brainwashed by both religious and political conservatives into doing so, and all Christians who ostracize, belittle or abuse gays are not following the teachings of Christ in doing so.

Incidentally, Queen Elizabeth II is not “the Queen Mother”, the queen’s mother was the queen mother, or Queen Mum, see how that works? She was also named Elizabeth, and as the wife of King George was called the queen consort, though was never actually queen herself.

March 29, 2012 at 5:03pm

Sohobod

@Brand
“She was also named Elizabeth, and as the wife of King George was called the queen consort, though was never actually queen herself.”
Sorry but you’re wrong there. The wife of a king is a queen (i.e. the old Queen Mother), but the husband of a reigning queen is not a king (i.e. Prince Philip). Sexist, I know, but that’s the way it is.

March 29, 2012 at 5:03pm

MikeE

@Sohobod: sorry, you’re the one who’s wrong. Elizabeth, the queen mother was not “queen”. She was queen consort, or else SHE would have been queen Elizabeth 2nd, and the present reigning queen would have be queen Elizabeth the 3rd.

here for your information: “A Queen consort (also Empress consort) is the wife of a reigning king. A queen consort usually shares her husband’s rank and holds the feminine equivalent of the king’s monarchical titles. Historically, queens consort do not share the king regnant’s political and military powers. Most queens in history were queens consort. A queen regnant is a queen in her own right with all the powers of a monarch, usually becoming queen by inheriting the throne on the death of the previous monarch; they have been far fewer in number.”

There you have it.

March 29, 2012 at 6:03pm

Brand

Sohobod is right on that point; I stand corrected. (I did know the bit about the Prince!) My central point—posted by two others before me as I was called away from my desk after starting—was the fact that this article misrepresented Queen Elizabeth II as “the Queen Mother”.

March 29, 2012 at 6:03pm

Brand

I really have to stop leaving my desk in the middle of writing a post! And it’s time for me to get out of here, too! MikeE is correct, and accurately articulates what I was trying to say. Not only is Queen Elizabeth II not the Queen Mother just because she’s a queen and a mother, but the Queen Mother was, even prior to her daughter’s ascension to the throne, not equal in power or title to what her daughter has been all these decades. I got the “queen consort” part right, and couldn’t remember the “queen regent” phrase. Thanks for clarifying, and my post #16 was not in response to your post #15. Of course, Elizabeth II’s mother was also Elizabeth, but she is not II due to her mother, she is II due to Elizabeth I, as in the “Elizabethan era” (Shakespearean times).

March 29, 2012 at 6:03pm

Sohobod

@MikeE
To be a “Queen” does not mean that she is the ruler. The wife if King Edward VII was Queen Alexandra. Hower, she was not the head of state. BUT – because to be a “King” does designate being boss – therefore the husband of a ruling Queen is NEVER known as a King. Like I said: “Prince” Philip; Queen Victoria’s husband “Prince Albert” etc etc.

Every morning the palace switchboard would connect Queen Elizabeth with her mother with the words: “Your Majesty, Her Majesty on the line… you’re through, Your Majesty.”

As they used to say on Soap: confused, you will be.

March 29, 2012 at 7:03pm

Jozef

Us Quakers are actually just the Religious Society of Friends. We like truth, but that’s not part of the name. And we have been fighting for equality for all for a very long time and welcome all.

March 29, 2012 at 8:03pm

Mark

She is not the queen mother until Charles ascends the throne.

March 29, 2012 at 8:03pm

tjr101

@Mark: She’ll actually never be the “Queen Mother” because when Charles ascends to the throne she’ll be dead.

March 29, 2012 at 9:03pm

InscrutableTed

This article is confusing two different Queen Elizabeths.

The first one, born Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, had her title by *marriage*. She was Queen for as long as she was married to King George VI. When King George VI died, she ceased to be Queen, but continued to be called “Queen Elizabeth” as a courtesy. To avoid confusion with the new Queen, she was called “The Queen Mother”.

Her daughter, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, has her title by *inheritence*. She inherited the throne from her father King George VI. She will never cease to be queen until her death.

The Queen Mother was never ruler of the UK. (Her husband, George VI, was the ruler.)

Queen Elizabeth II is herself the ruler of the UK. That’s why she gets numerals after her name and gets to be on the stamps and stuff.

MikeE

@MikeE:
That is debatable. But anyway, the Quakers are more than 300 years old, while the UCC was founded is 1925. So while the Church of Canada is a great deal more tolerant than most sects of Christianity, they are still very young for a denomination.
I just don’t know if they have the same recognition or significance that other denominations have.. I mean, this is the first I’ve heard of them.

March 30, 2012 at 11:03am

Jozef

We believe in the inner light of God existing in all persons. We believe in the ministry of all, meaning we don’t have ministers, but we all take part. As well as pacifism. There is more but it gets too theological for me to think of after working since 4 am.

March 30, 2012 at 2:03pm

Geoff B

@Jozef: Sounds a lot more Christian than the Pat Robertsons and Rick Santorums of the world. Thanks for the info.

March 30, 2012 at 3:03pm

jonjon

The only things I know about the Quakers is that they were for the abolition of slavery in America long before it was publicly popular to be, that they supported the fight for women’s right to vote during the suffragette movement, and now that they support gay marriage. All good things. Good on them.

March 30, 2012 at 4:03pm

J Stratford

The Quakers put freedom of Religion in the US constitution by way of their control of 2 state votes – Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

They also were the deciding votes that made English not German the language of government in the USA.